Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)
Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) measures the average duration a system operates without experiencing a service-disrupting failure. It reflects overall system reliability and is used to detect fragility in production environments.
Calculation
A failure is typically defined as any unplanned incident that causes a full or partial disruption of service and requires remediation. Teams should use a consistent failure definition based on incident tags, severity, or availability impact. Uptime should exclude planned maintenance windows and focus on periods where the system is expected to be available.
This metric is calculated by dividing the total system uptime by the number of failures recorded during that period:
mtbf = total uptime ÷ number of failures
Goals
MTBF helps teams evaluate how often their systems remain stable between disruptions. It answers questions like:
- Are we seeing frequent recurring incidents?
- Is our system improving in resilience over time?
- Where should we prioritize hardening efforts?
Monitoring MTBF allows teams to move beyond reactive firefighting and focus on reducing systemic sources of instability. For foundational context, see NIST's Reliability Engineering reference.
Variations
MTBF can be analyzed using several dimensions:
- By system or service, to identify weak points in distributed architectures
- By incident type, to segment between hardware, application, or external failure sources
- By severity threshold, such as P1 or S1 incidents only
Some teams also track rolling MTBF across defined intervals to detect trends. Others apply median time between failures to reduce skew from outliers. MTBF can be inverted to express failure rate, especially when used in modeling expected downtime over time.
Limitations
MTBF reflects time between service disruptions, but not the duration or severity of those disruptions. A high MTBF could still hide major outages if failures are rare but impactful.
It also does not explain why failures occur or how quickly teams recover. Without structured incident analysis and observability, the metric alone cannot guide preventive action.
To better understand reliability performance, MTBF should be used alongside:
| Complementary Metric | Why It’s Relevant |
|---|---|
| Mean Time to Restore (MTTR) | Shows how long systems remain down after each failure occurs. |
| Change Failure Rate | Identifies whether deployments are contributing to recurring failures. |
| Incident Volume | Provides visibility into the overall rate of disruptions, including minor ones not reflected in MTBF alone. |
Optimization
Improving MTBF means increasing the time between system-level incidents and reducing the likelihood of repeated service interruptions.
-
Identify recurring failure patterns. Use Postmortems and incident classification to surface repeat offenders—whether by system, trigger, or team. Invest in long-term fixes for problems that appear frequently in root cause analyses.
-
Improve deployment safety. Many failures are introduced during release. Apply Test-Driven Development, improve automated test coverage, and enforce Code Review Best Practices to prevent fragile changes from reaching production.
-
Build system resilience. Introduce redundancy, auto-failover, circuit breakers, and graceful degradation mechanisms to reduce the probability of total outages. Even if a failure occurs, a well-designed system can localize its impact.
-
Strengthen observability and alerting. Detect problems before they cascade into full outages. Monitoring saturation, latency, and usage anomalies can reveal early warning signs before they become failure events.
-
Clarify failure definitions. Inconsistent tagging or unclear classification will undermine MTBF accuracy. Define what counts as a failure and ensure it is logged consistently in incident and release systems.
Raising MTBF is not about preventing every possible failure. It is about engineering systems that fail less often, and more predictably, by design.
